Jump to content

Recommended Posts

My question is should I be comfortable now that 9 images have passed QC or should I still be on guard?

Hello, I am new and had read the Alamy forum prior to joining and I must say I was slightly frightened by the QC in Alamy and there was also some talk of how long it was taking to get through QC. I have so far experienced none of those problems. My first 4 images went though in 24 hours and passed, my second 5 images went though in about 40 hours and passed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always be on guard, as you say; regardless. 

 

Make sure you always, check before you upload. 

 

Welcome to the forums.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued (plus I don't understand your questions), what exactly do you mean by "comfortable" and "on guard" in the context of contributing to Alamy?

 

dd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then double check and double check again. Even the more experienced contributors are being hit on. I know to my cost as do some others on this forum.

 

Allan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Always check every image at 100% for dustbunnies and chromatic aberration. ALWAYS!  ;)

 

Cheers,

Philippe

And just make sure the important parts are sharp!

 

Welcome, and good luck - interesting images so far!

 

Kumar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Always check every image at 100% for dustbunnies and chromatic aberration. ALWAYS!  ;)

 

Cheers,

Philippe

And just make sure the important parts are sharp!

 

Welcome, and good luck - interesting images so far!

 

Kumar

 

 

Yes, unusual images. However, I'm wondering if they shouldn't be RM instead of RF. A couple look as if they might have been taken in a shop of some kind. If so, wouldn't property releases be needed for RF? 

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Alamy forum, The KIng Collection by Shirla!

 

I suggest you check your keywords.

For example, in "Gently Used" - an interesting photo of yours that caught my eye - these are some keywords that don't appear relevant:

bear, crib, footwear, gardening, outdoors, pram, teddy.

 

Also, I appreciate and enjoy the wit in the title "Gently Used" - but it could lead to Views by clients actually looking for gently used items (if I remember correctly that titles are searchable).

 

All the best - Ann

Edited by ann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might say "Concept: gently used." Welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You might say "Concept: gently used." Welcome.

Edo, speaking of "concept" - After looking through many of the images in Alamy's 'Book Cover' collection today, I noticed they all include the keyword "Concept" - and I sent myself an email reminder to add that keyword in relevant images of mine.

Edited by ann
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing with Alamy is to remember their QC works on a different principal to other agencies - particularly the microstock agencies. Once you have passed the initial assessment, Alamy will only check a small percentage of images in your submissions. If the inspected image in any batch fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Most manufacturing companies operate on these same principals when sourcing components, as it is impractical to inspect each and every component supplied to them. Each supplier is scrutinised closely on their first supply of a component and the whole batch inspected closely. If they pass inspection it is assumed the process for making that component is good and it is assumed the supplier has the competence to keep to the same standards. On subsequent deliveries only a tiny proportion of the components are inspected to a known statistical model. If these fail inspection, it is assumed (usually correctly) there has been a failure in the production process or in the competence of the supplier and the whole batch is returned. It is then the supplier's responsibility to sort out the problem.

 

Alamy works on the basis that its contributors are responsible, competent photographers working to professional standards (except perhaps for stockimo, which is another story) and places the responsibility for adherence to standards squarely on the shoulders of the contributor. If an inspected image fails it is taken as an indication that there may be a problem of some kind, maybe a change in equipment or workflow or styles of photography attempted, to name but three possibilities. In my case the most likely causes are failing eyesight and Poundland reading glasses! The whole batch is rejected and the contributor has to decide whether the problem is a one-time slip-upor a systemic failure of some kind, and re-work and resubmit as appropriate.

 

Many new contributors to Alamy don't really grasp this underlying principal of the Alamy QC and are infuriated when a whole batch is rejected. However, the principal of QC by statistical sampling is well founded in the manufacturing industries and easily applied to an industry which is accepting millions of components (images) but can't afford to increase the cost of sourcing them by inspecting each one individually.

 

The bottom line is that if you inspect each image yourself in the belief  that THIS will be the one scrutinised by the QC team, you are less likely to fall foul of them.

 

Typically, I find I have to wait a few days for my images to be cleared by QC, but it can vary at different times of the year.

  • Upvote 16

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good answer Joseph.

Your answer should probably included in the Alamy guidelines for contributors!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing with Alamy is to remember their QC works on a different principal to other agencies - particularly the microstock agencies. Once you have passed the initial assessment, Alamy will only check a small percentage of images in your submissions. If the inspected image in any batch fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Most manufacturing companies operate on these same principals when sourcing components, as it is impractical to inspect each and every component supplied to them. Each supplier is scrutinised closely on their first supply of a component and the whole batch inspected closely. If they pass inspection it is assumed the process for making that component is good and it is assumed the supplier has the competence to keep to the same standards. On subsequent deliveries only a tiny proportion of the components are inspected to a known statistical model. If these fail inspection, it is assumed (usually correctly) there has been a failure in the production process or in the competence of the supplier and the whole batch is returned. It is then the supplier's responsibility to sort out the problem.

 

Alamy works on the basis that its contributors are responsible, competent photographers working to professional standards (except perhaps for stockimo, which is another story) and places the responsibility for adherence to standards squarely on the shoulders of the contributor. If an inspected image fails it is taken as an indication that there may be a problem of some kind, maybe a change in equipment or workflow or styles of photography attempted, to name but three possibilities. In my case the most likely causes are failing eyesight and Poundland reading glasses! The whole batch is rejected and the contributor has to decide whether the problem is a one-time slip-upor a systemic failure of some kind, and re-work and resubmit as appropriate.

 

Many new contributors to Alamy don't really grasp this underlying principal of the Alamy QC and are infuriated when a whole batch is rejected. However, the principal of QC by statistical sampling is well founded in the manufacturing industries and easily applied to an industry which is accepting millions of components (images) but can't afford to increase the cost of sourcing them by inspecting each one individually.

 

The bottom line is that if you inspect each image yourself in the belief  that THIS will be the one scrutinised by the QC team, you are less likely to fall foul of them.

 

Typically, I find I have to wait a few days for my images to be cleared by QC, but it can vary at different times of the year.

The statistical process control is six sigma, developed by Motorola in 1986.  "A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defective features / million opportunities)" (wikipedia).  As far as I know Alamy QC standards are not as stringent but they operate on pretty much the same principles of requiring the supplier to be responsible for their own QC - and if Alamy find that that has failed they rightly reject the batch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The key thing with Alamy is to remember their QC works on a different principal to other agencies - particularly the microstock agencies. Once you have passed the initial assessment, Alamy will only check a small percentage of images in your submissions. If the inspected image in any batch fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Most manufacturing companies operate on these same principals when sourcing components, as it is impractical to inspect each and every component supplied to them. Each supplier is scrutinised closely on their first supply of a component and the whole batch inspected closely. If they pass inspection it is assumed the process for making that component is good and it is assumed the supplier has the competence to keep to the same standards. On subsequent deliveries only a tiny proportion of the components are inspected to a known statistical model. If these fail inspection, it is assumed (usually correctly) there has been a failure in the production process or in the competence of the supplier and the whole batch is returned. It is then the supplier's responsibility to sort out the problem.

 

Alamy works on the basis that its contributors are responsible, competent photographers working to professional standards (except perhaps for stockimo, which is another story) and places the responsibility for adherence to standards squarely on the shoulders of the contributor. If an inspected image fails it is taken as an indication that there may be a problem of some kind, maybe a change in equipment or workflow or styles of photography attempted, to name but three possibilities. In my case the most likely causes are failing eyesight and Poundland reading glasses! The whole batch is rejected and the contributor has to decide whether the problem is a one-time slip-upor a systemic failure of some kind, and re-work and resubmit as appropriate.

 

Many new contributors to Alamy don't really grasp this underlying principal of the Alamy QC and are infuriated when a whole batch is rejected. However, the principal of QC by statistical sampling is well founded in the manufacturing industries and easily applied to an industry which is accepting millions of components (images) but can't afford to increase the cost of sourcing them by inspecting each one individually.

 

The bottom line is that if you inspect each image yourself in the belief  that THIS will be the one scrutinised by the QC team, you are less likely to fall foul of them.

 

Typically, I find I have to wait a few days for my images to be cleared by QC, but it can vary at different times of the year.

The statistical process control is six sigma, developed by Motorola in 1986.  "A six sigma process is one in which 99.99966% of all opportunities to produce some feature of a part are statistically expected to be free of defects (3.4 defective features / million opportunities)" (wikipedia).  As far as I know Alamy QC standards are not as stringent but they operate on pretty much the same principles of requiring the supplier to be responsible for their own QC - and if Alamy find that that has failed they rightly reject the batch.

 

 

Actually statistical QC goes back a lot further to the work of W Edwards Deming in the immediate post-war period. Most notably in Japan in 1950-60ish that led to their manufacturing success of the latter part of the 20th century/

Edited by Martin P Wilson
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The key thing with Alamy is to remember their QC works on a different principal to other agencies - particularly the microstock agencies. Once you have passed the initial assessment, Alamy will only check a small percentage of images in your submissions. If the inspected image in any batch fails, the whole batch is rejected.

 

Most manufacturing companies operate on these same principals when sourcing components, as it is impractical to inspect each and every component supplied to them. Each supplier is scrutinised closely on their first supply of a component and the whole batch inspected closely. If they pass inspection it is assumed the process for making that component is good and it is assumed the supplier has the competence to keep to the same standards. On subsequent deliveries only a tiny proportion of the components are inspected to a known statistical model. If these fail inspection, it is assumed (usually correctly) there has been a failure in the production process or in the competence of the supplier and the whole batch is returned. It is then the supplier's responsibility to sort out the problem.

 

Alamy works on the basis that its contributors are responsible, competent photographers working to professional standards (except perhaps for stockimo, which is another story) and places the responsibility for adherence to standards squarely on the shoulders of the contributor. If an inspected image fails it is taken as an indication that there may be a problem of some kind, maybe a change in equipment or workflow or styles of photography attempted, to name but three possibilities. In my case the most likely causes are failing eyesight and Poundland reading glasses! The whole batch is rejected and the contributor has to decide whether the problem is a one-time slip-upor a systemic failure of some kind, and re-work and resubmit as appropriate.

 

Many new contributors to Alamy don't really grasp this underlying principal of the Alamy QC and are infuriated when a whole batch is rejected. However, the principal of QC by statistical sampling is well founded in the manufacturing industries and easily applied to an industry which is accepting millions of components (images) but can't afford to increase the cost of sourcing them by inspecting each one individually.

 

The bottom line is that if you inspect each image yourself in the belief  that THIS will be the one scrutinised by the QC team, you are less likely to fall foul of them.

 

Typically, I find I have to wait a few days for my images to be cleared by QC, but it can vary at different times of the year.

 

+1 Very well written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You might say "Concept: gently used." Welcome.

Edo, speaking of "concept" - After looking through many of the images in Alamy's 'Book Cover' collection today, I noticed they all include the keyword "Concept" - and I sent myself an email reminder to add that keyword in relevant images of mine.

 

 

Ann, if you do an Alamy search of "concept" you'll find over a million images. Yikes! Two or three are mine.  :wacko:

Edited by Ed Rooney
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Actually statistical QC goes back a lot further to the work of W Edwards Deming in the immediate post-war period. Most notably in Japan in 1950-60ish that led to their manufacturing success of the latter part of the 20th century/

 

Agreed.  The one I've got most experience of is Six Sigma so I used it as the example.  Imagine if Alamy worked to those standards.  Would anyone pass QC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm intrigued (plus I don't understand your questions), what exactly do you mean by "comfortable" and "on guard" in the context of contributing to Alamy?

 

dd

dustydingo.  What I ment was can I relax now that I have passed the QC's two times..

 

Thank you all for your responces,  your answers have been very helpful and I will continue to work on my images and understanding of Alamy rules.  have a great day :)

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm intrigued (plus I don't understand your questions), what exactly do you mean by "comfortable" and "on guard" in the context of contributing to Alamy?

 

dd

dustydingo.  What I ment was can I relax now that I have passed the QC's two times..

 

Thank you all for your responces,  your answers have been very helpful and I will continue to work on my images and understanding of Alamy rules.  have a great day :)

 

 

As long as "relax" doesn't in any way compromise the principles most eloquently described by Joseph earlier, you'll be fine :-)

 

Having said that, it's wise to not be seduced into thinking that QC failures only happen to others, and it's especially wise to not be seduced by the reaction of some others to think that QC failure is anyone else's fault :-)

 

dd

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Actually statistical QC goes back a lot further to the work of W Edwards Deming in the immediate post-war period. Most notably in Japan in 1950-60ish that led to their manufacturing success of the latter part of the 20th century/

 

Agreed.  The one I've got most experience of is Six Sigma so I used it as the example.  Imagine if Alamy worked to those standards.  Would anyone pass QC?

 

 

The answer is of course yes. It is the suppliers (photographers) responsibility to ensure that every one of their own products meets the required quality standard, through a combination of their own process and their own checking.

 

It ties in with the initial assessment process that Alamy applies to the first for images. What they are really checking in those first four images is that the contributor understands what quality means and that the contributor is able to deliver images that meet that quality standard.

 

Great article by Joseph.  +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never relax. Behave as if each submission is your initial 4 for acceptance. If you study an image and ask yourself, "is it sharp enough?" It probably isn't.

 

If relax means you view the image at normal size on your screen, thinking how good it looks, and without inspecting each and every part at 100% for dust bunnies, noise or CA, then you will eventually fall afoul of QC.

I'm here to tell you that once you have a few failures, you get on the black list. That's where QC doesn't just check a representative few, but pours over them all. Then you begin to doubt yourself so much that you toss perfectly good images (probably).

 

I do all of that, and still fail. I am suspecting my vision has deteriorated.

 

I hate living on that edge.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Double post

Edited by Betty LaRue
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never relax. Behave as if each submission is your initial 4 for acceptance. If you study an image and ask yourself, "is it sharp enough?" It probably isn't.

 

If relax means you view the image at normal size on your screen, thinking how good it looks, and without inspecting each and every part at 100% for dust bunnies, noise or CA, then you will eventually fall afoul of QC.

I'm here to tell you that once you have a few failures, you get on the black list. That's where QC doesn't just check a representative few, but pours over them all. Then you begin to doubt yourself so much that you toss perfectly good images (probably).

 

I do all of that, and still fail. I am suspecting my vision has deteriorated.

 

I hate living on that edge

 

I have apparently graduated from the black list, so it is possible to redeem oneself. Hang in there.

 

Have to agree with your advice. I now pour over each submission like a madman and don't upload more than a couple of dozen images at one time. I also have a very powerful set of "Alamy specs" (reading glasses) that I wear when checking images.

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to become a bit paranoid about QC after months in the wilderness.

I have just been over a sub and deleted 20% of it. Most of these images I would have submitted a couple of years ago with no qualms.  IMHO some of my better images are now falling by the wayside because the bar is now higher.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is possible to become a bit paranoid about QC after months in the wilderness.

I have just been over a sub and deleted 20% of it. Most of these images I would have submitted a couple of years ago with no qualms.  IMHO some of my better images are now falling by the wayside because the bar is now higher.

I hear you. My sobs can be heard for miles when I delete those. The best shot out of the set with a priceless expression. Is there a bit of noise? If I question that, I toss it then stomp around. And yes, I use LR noise reduction, then I ask, did it make the image look plastic? Still ends up tossed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is possible to become a bit paranoid about QC after months in the wilderness.

I have just been over a sub and deleted 20% of it. Most of these images I would have submitted a couple of years ago with no qualms.  IMHO some of my better images are now falling by the wayside because the bar is now higher.

I hear you. My sobs can be heard for miles when I delete those. The best shot out of the set with a priceless expression. Is there a bit of noise? If I question that, I toss it then stomp around. And yes, I use LR noise reduction, then I ask, did it make the image look plastic? Still ends up tossed.

 

 

I appreciate the sentiment but I don't delete them. I may not be able to submit them but I might be able to use them at web sizes, perhaps myself, or for small print purposes through non-library routes. So all need not be lost.

 

Chin up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.